22092 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 20, 2011 / Notices 

obtain new information on each of these 

topics that is not yet in the record for 

this proceeding. Please note that 

although we have allotted the entire 

morning session to discussion of the 

CPM compensation methodology, we 

will move on to discussion of 

exceptional dispatch mitigation as soon 

as the compensation discussion is 

concluded. 

10 a.m.–12:30 p.m. Discussion on the 

CPM Compensation Methodology 

—Whether the proposed going-forward 

formula for CPM compensation 

continues to be appropriate. 

—Whether and how CPM compensation 

should change in response to changes 

in supply and demand so that the 

CPM continues to ensure appropriate 

compensation to non-resource 

adequacy resources that provide 

reliability services similar to those 

provided by resource adequacy 

resources. 

—Whether and how CPM compensation 

should respond to localized scarcity 

conditions; please evaluate the 

challenges and benefits of 

implementing CPM scarcity pricing. 

—Given that resource adequacy 

resources are currently procured 

through bilateral contracting, whether 

and how CPM compensation should 

replicate bilateral market results. 

—Please discuss the feasibility and 

appropriateness of using a mechanism 

such as a demand curve to allow the 

price of CPM capacity to rise during 

times of supply shortages. 

—Other than a demand-curve based 

compensation mechanism, how could 

the CPM compensation methodology 

be modified to better respond to 

changing market conditions (i.e., 

fluctuations in supply and demand 

over time); please discuss the 

challenges and benefits of any such 

approach. 

—Whether different categories of CPM 

designations, including resources 

selected on the basis of specific 

operating characteristics and 

resources designated as at risk of 

retirement, should be compensated 

differently. 

—What role the CPM should play in 

sending price signals for demand 

response. 

—How demand response will play a 

role in the CPM and/or exceptional 

dispatch consistent with Order No. 

719 (e.g. criteria for selecting demand 

response resources for CPM 

designations or exceptional dispatch 

instructions). 

12:30 p.m.–1:15 p.m. Lunch break 

1:15 p.m.–3:45 p.m. Discussion on 

Exceptional Dispatch Mitigation 

—Whether and how CAISO’s efforts 

towards reducing the frequency and 

volume of exceptional dispatches 

have affected the potential for 

exceptionally dispatched resources to 

exercise market power. 

—Whether CAISO’s non-competitive 

path assessment remains a reliable 

indicator of the need for exceptional 

dispatch mitigation in light of 

protesters’ assertions that the 

competitive path assessment overclassifies paths as non-competitive. 

—Whether or how changes over the past 

two years, such as an increase in the 

number of resources available in the 

delta dispatch, have resulted in a 

reduction in the ability of any single 

resource to exercise market power in 

relation to the delta dispatch 

restrictions. 

—Whether there is data or, alternatively, 

detailed specific theoretical scenarios, 

that demonstrate with some type of 

regularity or predictability the 

potential for resources that are 

exceptionally dispatched in relation 

to non-competitive constraints or 

delta dispatch to exercise market 

power. 

3:45 p.m.–4 p.m. Closing Remarks 

[FR Doc. 2011–9516 Filed 4–19–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. CP11–159–000] 

Perryville Gas Storage LLC; Notice of 

Amendment 

Take notice that on March 30, 2011, 

Perryville Gas Storage LLC (Perryville), 

Three Riverway, Suite 1350, Houston, 

Texas 77056, filed in the above 

referenced docket an application under 

section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act 

(NGA) and Part 157 of the Commission’s 

regulations for an order amending the 

certificate of public convenience and 

necessity issued in Docket No. CP09– 

418–000 to authorize Perryville to make 

certain changes to its certificated 

project, all as more fully set forth in the 

application which is on file with the 

Commission and open to public 

inspection. The filing may also be 

viewed on the web at http:// 

www.ferc.gov using the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link. 

Enter the docket number excluding the 

last three digits in the docket number 

field to access the document. For 

assistance, please contact FERC Online 

Support at FERCOnlineSupport@

ferc.gov or toll free at (866) 208–3676, or 

TTY, contact (202) 502–8659. 

Perryville proposes to increase its 

working gas capacity in each cavern by 

2.5 billion cubic feet (Bcf) each. 

Perryville also proposes to drill three 

freshwater supply wells, six brine 

disposal wells, and eight monitor wells. 

Perryville additionally seeks 

reaffirmation of its previously granted 

authorization to charge market-based 

rates for its storage and hub services, as 

well as the various waivers granted in 

the order issuing certificate. 

Any questions concerning this 

application may be directed to J. Gordon 

Pennington, Attorney at Law, 2707 N. 

Kensington St., Arlington, VA 22207, at 

(703) 533–7638 or by e-mail at 

Pennington5@verzion.net. 

Pursuant to section 157.9 of the 

Commission’s rules, 18 CFR 157.9, 

within 90 days of this Notice the 

Commission staff will either: Complete 

its environmental assessment (EA) and 

place it into the Commission’s public 

record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or 

issue a Notice of Schedule for 

Environmental Review. If a Notice of 

Schedule for Environmental Review is 

issued, it will indicate, among other 

milestones, the anticipated date for the 

Commission staff’s issuance of the final 

environmental impact statement (FEIS) 

or EA for this proposal. The filing of the 

EA in the Commission’s public record 

for this proceeding or the issuance of a 

Notice of Schedule for Environmental 

Review will serve to notify federal and 

state agencies of the timing for the 

completion of all necessary reviews, and 

the subsequent need to complete all 

federal authorizations within 90 days of 

the date of issuance of the Commission 

staff’s FEIS or EA. 

There are two ways to become 

involved in the Commission’s review of 

this project. First, any person wishing to 

obtain legal status by becoming a party 

to the proceedings for this project 

should, on or before the comment date 

stated below, file with the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 

First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, 

a motion to intervene in accordance 

with the requirements of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) 

and the Regulations under the NGA (18 

CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party 

status will be placed on the service list 

maintained by the Secretary of the 

Commission and will receive copies of 

all documents filed by the applicant and 

by all other parties. A party must submit 

seven copies of filings made with the 

Commission and must mail a copy to 

the applicant and to every other party in 

the proceeding. Only parties to the 

proceeding can ask for court review of 

Commission orders in the proceeding. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 20, 2011 / Notices 22093 

However, a person does not have to 

intervene in order to have comments 

considered. The second way to 

participate is by filing with the 

Secretary of the Commission, as soon as 

possible, an original and two copies of 

comments in support of or in opposition 

to this project. The Commission will 

consider these comments in 

determining the appropriate action to be 

taken, but the filing of a comment alone 

will not serve to make the filer a party 

to the proceeding. The Commission’s 

rules require that persons filing 

comments in opposition to the project 

provide copies of their protests only to 

the party or parties directly involved in 

the protest. 

Persons who wish to comment only 

on the environmental review of this 

project should submit an original and 

two copies of their comments to the 

Secretary of the Commission. 

Environmental commentors will be 

placed on the Commission’s 

environmental mailing list, will receive 

copies of the environmental documents, 

and will be notified of meetings 

associated with the Commission’s 

environmental review process. 

Environmental commentors will not be 

required to serve copies of filed 

documents on all other parties. 

However, the non-party commentors 

will not receive copies of all documents 

filed by other parties or issued by the 

Commission (except for the mailing of 

environmental documents issued by the 

Commission) and will not have the right 

to seek court review of the 

Commission’s final order. 

The Commission strongly encourages 

electronic filings of comments, protests 

and interventions in lieu of paper using 

the ‘‘eFiling’’ link at http://www.ferc.gov. 

Persons unable to file electronically 

should submit an original and 14 copies 

of the protest or intervention to the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20426. 

This filing is accessible on-line at 

http://www.ferc.gov, using the 

‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for 

review in the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room in Washington, DC. 

There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the 

Web site that enables subscribers to 

receive e-mail notification when a 

document is added to a subscribed 

docket(s). For assistance with any FERC 

Online service, please e-mail 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call 

(866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call 

(202) 502–8659. 

Comment Date: May 4, 2011. 

Dated: April 13, 2011. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9517 Filed 4–19–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket Nos. CP11–161–000; PF10–23–000] 

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company; 

Notice of Application 

On March 31, 2011, Tennessee Gas 

Pipeline Company (Tennessee), 1001 

Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002, 

filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (Commission) an 

application under section 7(c) of the 

Natural Gas Act (NGA), as amended, 

and part 157 of the Commission’s 

regulations to construct, install, modify, 

operate, and maintain certain pipeline 

and compressor facilities to be located 

in Pennsylvania and New Jersey (the 

Northeast Upgrade Project). The Project 

involves (1) Installing approximately 

39.5 miles of five 30-inch pipeline loop 

segments in Pennsylvania and New 

Jersey, (2) installing an additional 

22,310 horsepower of compression at 

two existing compressor stations located 

in Pennsylvania; (3) restaging an 

existing compressor station and 

installing filter separators at three 

existing compressor stations in 

Pennsylvania and one existing 

compressor station in New Jersey; and 

(4) upgrading an existing meter station 

in New Jersey. In addition to the 

certificate authority requested in its 

application, Tennessee seeks 

authorization, pursuant to section 7(b) 

of the NGA, to abandon facilities that 

will be retired in conjunction with the 

replacement of certain metering 

facilities, as more fully described in 

Tennessee’s application. Tennessee 

proposes to construct the Northeast 

Upgrade Project facilities to increase 

pipeline capacity to provide up to an 

additional 636,000 dekatherms per day 

of firm natural gas transportation service 

into northeast U.S. markets. 

Questions regarding the application 

may be directed to Jacquelyne Rocan, 

Senior Counsel, Tennessee Gas Pipeline 

Company, 1001 Louisiana Street, 

Houston, Texas 77002, phone: (713) 

420–4544, fax: (713) 420–1601, e-mail: 

jacquelyne.rocan@elpaso.com, or 

Thomas Joyce, Manager, Rates and 

Regulatory Affairs, Tennessee Gas 

Pipeline Company, 1001 Louisiana 

Street, Houston, Texas 77002, phone: 

(713) 420–3299, fax: (713) 420–1605, email: tom.joyce@elpaso.com. 

On July 20, 2010, the Commission 

staff granted Tennessee’s request to use 

the pre-filing process and assigned 

Docket No. PF10–23–000 for this 

proceeding during the pre-filing review 

of the Northeast Upgrade Project. Now, 

as of the filing of Tennessee’s 

application on March 31, 2011, the prefiling process for this project has ended. 

From this time forward, Tennessee’s 

proceeding will be conducted in Docket 

No. CP11–161–000, as noted in the 

caption of this Notice. 

Pursuant to section 157.9 of the 

Commission’s rules, 18 CFR 157.9, 

within 90 days of this Notice the 

Commission staff will either: complete 

its environmental assessment (EA) and 

place it into the Commission’s public 

record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or 

issue a Notice of Schedule for 

Environmental Review. If a Notice of 

Schedule for Environmental Review is 

issued, it will indicate, among other 

milestones, the anticipated date for the 

Commission staff’s issuance of the final 

environmental impact statement (FEIS) 

or EA for this proposal. The filing of the 

EA in the Commission’s public record 

for this proceeding or the issuance of a 

Notice of Schedule for Environmental 

Review will serve to notify federal and 

state agencies of the timing for the 

completion of all necessary reviews, and 

the subsequent need to complete all 

federal authorizations within 90 days of 

the date of issuance of the Commission 

staff’s FEIS or EA. 

There are two ways to become 

involved in the Commission’s review of 

this project. First, any person wishing to 

obtain legal status by becoming a party 

to the proceedings for this project 

should, on or before the comment date 

stated below, file with the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 

First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, 

a motion to intervene in accordance 

with the requirements of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) 

and the Regulations under the NGA (18 

CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party 

status will be placed on the service list 

maintained by the Secretary of the 

Commission and will receive copies of 

all documents filed by the applicant and 

by all other parties. A party must submit 

seven copies of filings made with the 

Commission and must mail a copy to 

the applicant and to every other party in 

the proceeding. Only parties to the 

proceeding can ask for court review of 

Commission orders in the proceeding. 

Persons who wish to comment only 

on the environmental review of this 

project should submit an original and 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES